Greed knows no bounds.

Except many of those towns would barely exist without tourism. It's tourists that sustain the cafes, restaurants, attractions and geegaw shops - all of these create jobs and generate income directly to local authorities through business rates. Instead of looking at tourists as generating "costs authorities are forced to incur", such expenditure should be looked upon as investment to encourage tourism.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's "Either or" though. Yes, tourists bring money, but they also bring costs and someone has to cover them. York has a population of about 200 000 people, and gets over six and a half million tourists a year. In order to invest in the transport infrastructure, sewers for hotels, policing and other things like cleaning the vast amounts of rubbish produced by 6.5 million people in a fairly small medieval city, the local government has to get money from somewhere.

In our village we happen to have one of the two biggest printers in Europe. I'm not sure why. They pay business tax, which funds things like extra roads for their trucks, and the more specialised fire engines needed by the local fire department, and also for the more frequent callouts their highly sensitive fire detectors cause. This isn't greed: it's money for investment, and the company pays it because they know they get something in return.

As @Andy in Germany already has pointed out and place that get's masters of visitors has extra costs on top of cost just to keep things going for everyone else who call that place home. In the case of York the idea is being thought of I believe due to the increased cost of the now many stag and hen do's and the issues they bring. The other option is to impose an extra charge on the business rates to cover this but then which business ? and how you work it out? Business rates are already a right dogs dinner. One example staying in York is a shop down the shambles per sq ft pays more than the massive M&S round the conner. LA have little say in business rates and how to apply them the whole thing needs a massive re think. The other way is increase council tax along with the precept. Cost of providing services as LA are massive the costs that once passed over my desk are eye watering yes visitors bring jobs etc but they also bring extra costs that unless you find a fair way to pay for them will have to be covered by all inc the ones with very little extra money to spare as it is.

If the change is clear and up front and not silly about. It is clear how it's used and not used to plug holes or pay for some council leaders grand plan then I'm ok with it. But let's also reform the law and make police forcers able to charge the real true cost of policing football matchers who also bring extra cost and stain on services week in and week out. One example with a high number of clubs is South Yorkshire not too long ago spent 1.3 million just on football. With only about a 3rd being claimed back under the current rules.

Resort fees suck! Going to Las Vegas we end up paying another $35 for nothing. No getting around it. I don't use their pools and real stupid thing is, they charge you a resort fee even if the pool is closed during winter months. Really sucks, all greed!

BTW, it's crazy. We can get a room for $60 during the week, plus another $35 for the resort fee.

I don't think it's "Either or" though. Yes, tourists bring money, but they also bring costs and someone has to cover them. York has a population of about 200 000 people, and gets over six and a half million tourists a year. In order to invest in the transport infrastructure, sewers for hotels, policing and other things like cleaning the vast amounts of rubbish produced by 6.5 million people in a fairly small medieval city, the local government has to get money from somewhere.

In our village we happen to have one of the two biggest printers in Europe. I'm not sure why. They pay business tax, which funds things like extra roads for their trucks, and the more specialised fire engines needed by the local fire department, and also for the more frequent callouts their highly sensitive fire detectors cause. This isn't greed: it's money for investment, and the company pays it because they know they get something in return.

As @Andy in Germany already has pointed out and place that get's masters of visitors has extra costs on top of cost just to keep things going for everyone else who call that place home. In the case of York the idea is being thought of I believe due to the increased cost of the now many stag and hen do's and the issues they bring. The other option is to impose an extra charge on the business rates to cover this but then which business ? and how you work it out? Business rates are already a right dogs dinner. One example staying in York is a shop down the shambles per sq ft pays more than the massive M&S round the conner. LA have little say in business rates and how to apply them the whole thing needs a massive re think. The other way is increase council tax along with the precept. Cost of providing services as LA are massive the costs that once passed over my desk are eye watering yes visitors bring jobs etc but they also bring extra costs that unless you find a fair way to pay for them will have to be covered by all inc the ones with very little extra money to spare as it is.

If the change is clear and up front and not silly about. It is clear how it's used and not used to plug holes or pay for some council leaders grand plan then I'm ok with it. But let's also reform the law and make police forcers able to charge the real true cost of policing football matchers who also bring extra cost and stain on services week in and week out. One example with a high number of clubs is South Yorkshire not too long ago spent 1.3 million just on football. With only about a 3rd being claimed back under the current rules.

Click to expand...

On the football , a lot of people going to matches live and work in the area and pay tax, rates etc.

Over policing is an issue . Most games I go to there's dozens of them standing in and around the ground with nothing to do.

Should we charge other organisations for police time, party conferences, royal visits etc

On the football , a lot of people going to matches live and work in the area and pay tax, rates etc.

Over policing is an issue . Most games I go to there's dozens of them standing in and around the ground with nothing to do.

Should we charge other organisations for police time, party conferences, royal visits etc

Click to expand...

If there aren't enough and something goes wrong there will enquiries and sackings so I imagine they are a bit over cautious.

I remember when the Euro cup was in Germany: we had British police in Stuttgart because they couldn't trust the fans to behave otherwise. I often wondered who paid for that.

I don't know about party conferences, but I think the Royals ought to cover security costs when they graciously allow commoners to see them getting married et c.

Here if something is officially a protest the police cover it for free (because it is a constitutional right to organise protests) but if it is officially a commercial event, then it has to be paid for.

On the football , a lot of people going to matches live and work in the area and pay tax, rates etc.

Over policing is an issue . Most games I go to there's dozens of them standing in and around the ground with nothing to do.

Should we charge other organisations for police time, party conferences, royal visits etc

Click to expand...

There's no history of delegates at party conferences or flag wavers at royal visits beating the crap out of each other, or stabbing or bottling each other...there clearly is in and around football grounds, indeed very recently. If ALL 'football fans' or those who claim to be fans could behave impeccably or be trusted to do so, then maybe such a heavy police presence would not be required to deal with the minority of idiot Neanderthals

I don't think it's "Either or" though. Yes, tourists bring money, but they also bring costs and someone has to cover them. York has a population of about 200 000 people, and gets over six and a half million tourists a year. In order to invest in the transport infrastructure, sewers for hotels, policing and other things like cleaning the vast amounts of rubbish produced by 6.5 million people in a fairly small medieval city, the local government has to get money from somewhere.

In our village we happen to have one of the two biggest printers in Europe. I'm not sure why. They pay business tax, which funds things like extra roads for their trucks, and the more specialised fire engines needed by the local fire department, and also for the more frequent callouts their highly sensitive fire detectors cause. This isn't greed: it's money for investment, and the company pays it because they know they get something in return.

Click to expand...

and so do the hotels in Edinburgh, in fact they already pay an enormous amout of tax, this new levy is a new made up tax added on top of the vast amounts of taxes they already pay.

for instance that big hotel next to the station, you know the one with the clock thats a bit fast. - 168 rooms, RV=£2,335,000 so at 50p in the pound and 75% occupancy thats a massive £25.40 per room per night that the council gets to waste on god knows what. Tourists are already paying an arm and a leg to visit the capital.

I think it would have been fairer just to increase rates than a blanket across the board tariff that will disproportionately affect lower income people looking for cheaper rooms. Yet again its a tax that favours the wealthy.

Interesting to read the various views, most of them valid.
I have mixed feeling.
In Spain and (I think) Portugal they 'charge' the visitor according to the rating of the hotel. As we tend to enjoy 4* hotels we pay near maximum.
My first thought was WHY?? Surely, more visitors =more money into the local economy.
Then I thought......
But its the local shops, bars and restaurants etc that benefit while the tax from those profits goes to the government.
So yes, the local council need to recoup somehow.
BUT......
As I understand it, its only hotel patrons that pay this 'charge' in which case we are paying/subsidising all those people that stay in tents or caravans etc.
I still dont "want" to pay it but hope that it goes to good use.

There's no history of delegates at party conferences or flag wavers at royal visits beating the crap out of each other, or stabbing or bottling each other...there clearly is in and around football grounds, indeed very recently. If ALL 'football fans' or those who claim to be fans could behave impeccably or be trusted to do so, then maybe such a heavy police presence would not be required to deal with the minority of idiot Neanderthals

Click to expand...

I've been going to games in Glasgow for over 50 years and have yet to see a stabbing or bottling.
There is very rarely as much as a handbag swung in anger these days but we still have ridiculous numbers of police.

Party conferences have huge numbers of police in attendance, why should they be subsidised by the rest of us